What If Obama Really Was Born in Kenya?

Slate ^ | August 3, 2009 | Brian Palmer

[Zakeet]

Despite a congressional resolution affirming President Obama's U.S. birth and a reaffirmation of his birth certificate's authenticity from Hawaiian officials, media outlets continue to air frivolous allegations that the president was born in Kenya, rendering him ineligible for the presidency. Let's pretend, for just a moment, that the birthers had credible evidence that Obama was foreign-born. Then what would happen?

Resignation, impeachment, or nothing. If Obama stood his ground, and Congress stood by him, then the only way to legally remove him from office would be for someone to sue. Problem is, no one would have standing to bring such a lawsuit. To establish standing, a plaintiff must show that he has suffered an injury personal to him, that the defendant caused the injury, and that the court could provide a remedy. That turns out to be an impossible task.

Average citizens could not show a personalized injury because Obama's allegedly illegitimate presidency would impact everyone in roughly the same way. Courts invariably dismiss such claims, like the 1937 case alleging that Justice Hugo Black was ineligible to serve because as a member of Congress he had voted to increase the justices' salaries. Even membership in much smaller aggrieved groups generally doesn't work. The Supreme Court rejected a suit brought by parents of African-American children challenging the IRS's lax enforcement of anti-discrimination laws and another by legislators who claimed their voting rights were diluted by the line-item veto. In both cases, the communal nature of the injury precluded standing. Thus the lawsuit of Army Maj. Stefan Cook, who argued that his pending deployment to Afghanistan by an illegitimate president constituted a particularized injury, was doomed to failure. (The case was mooted when the Pentagon canceled his deployment.)

[Canedawg]

“I think it’s interesting that the media is even beginning to consider the possibility, but I think the Dem party considered the possibility a long time ago and already has a strategy in place.”
***

If there is any type of formal investigation that occurs, it must include his school and medical records, if they havent already been scrubbed.

For this issue to be properly examined, ALL stones must be unturned.

[RegulatorCountry]

They never used the term natural born citizen again ever. So if you want to go by that, then no one is a natural born citizen and therefore no one can serve as President.

Congress never again enacted statute law attempting to revise, extend or otherwise modify the term, because it was and remains a specific term in the Constitution, which Congress is not empowered to alter in any way, due to being limited to matters of immigration and naturalization by the Constitution itself.

The Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and statute law is the practical, day to day application of the Constitution. In light of this, your statement that no one is a natural-born citizen under original intent is just bizarre.

You're no doubt saying this because no statute law deals with anything other than immigration and naturalization, which is correct per the powers enumerated to Congress.

The rights and obligations of citizenship, of any form, are absolutely identical in every instance, with the exception of one thing, an elected office, identified as such in the Constitution, which is the supreme law.

The meaning of the term "natural-born citizen" has been spelled out by our very first Supreme Court Justice, both before and after Ratification of the Constitution, and by the author of the 14th Amendment. These two alone should be persuasive to the point of definitive, for those who actually want to acknowledge an originalist definition. But, these two are certainly not the only examples to provide.

Again, and I cannot state this emphatically enough, enumeration of powers prevents Congress from ever having done what so many want to claim has been done.

Why is this so difficult? I've concluded that it's not difficult for those who don't want to obfuscate out of a desire to change the requirement.

[Cboldt]

-- So he was born on American soil even though it is not now American soil. --

He was deemed to be on US soil by operation of statute. But "being on US soil" was a secondary point in the scheme of things.

I believe the founders would have considered him a natural born citizen by dint of being born of citizen parents, and that was an essential part of the argument that persuaded Congress to conclude that McCain was a natural born citizen. Another essential part is that his parents were off US soil proper on account of military orders.

One should wonder, reading this, why the Senate didn't declare that ALL children born of US citizen parents, on American military assignments overseas, are natural born citizens as that term is used in Article II of the constitution. This resolution is a personal favor, not a principled pronouncement.

S. Res. 511

Whereas there is no evidence of the intention of the Framers or any Congress to limit the constitutional rights of children born to Americans serving in the military nor to prevent those children from serving as their country's President;

Whereas the term 'natural born Citizen', as that term appears in Article II, Section 1, is not defined in the Constitution of the United States;

Whereas there is no evidence of the intention of the Framers or any Congress to limit the constitutional rights of children born to Americans serving in the military nor to prevent those children from serving as their country's President;

Whereas such limitations would be inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the 'natural born Citizen' clause of the Constitution of the United States, as evidenced by the First Congress's own statute defining the term 'natural born Citizen';

Whereas the well-being of all citizens of the United States is preserved and enhanced by the men and women who are assigned to serve our country outside of our national borders;

Whereas previous presidential candidates were born outside of the United States of America and were understood to be eligible to be President [Goldwater, Romney]; and

Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936:

[rlmorel]

“Oh, what a web we weave...”

I think his books are a total fabrication anyway, by him. I think that POS Ayers did write his book for him...

[Quix]

OUT WITH THE TRAITOR FROM KENYA AND HELL ALREADY YET!

THX LUCY.

[melancholy]

And to good folks like pissant and others, I apologize for derogatory remarks I've made and will even abstain from using the term "birther" as it is a derogatory term used by the left to smear my fellow conservatives.

Many people on the other side changed their minds. Read my post, #220 and stating that the BC is a part of a general question and discovery.

Welcome to the right side that seeks the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

[Sola Veritas]

This one is easy. Should POTUS Obama be shown clearly to be in office contrary to the Constitution. Then IF the Republicans in Congress would simply refuse to recognize his authority as POTUS then they could shut down government. In order to keep the situation from spiralling out of control, the Democrats in Congress would have to go along and impeach Mr. Obama. Of course, this requires Republicans with some guts.

This is all very hypothetical.

[cripplecreek]

And to good folks like pissant and others, I apologize for derogatory remarks I've made and will even abstain from using the term "birther" as it is a derogatory term used by the left to smear my fellow conservatives.

Don't worry about it, its a heated issue.

I also have doubts that he will be removed but I do believe it will seriously cripple Obama and shake the democrat party to its foundations.

[Cboldt]

-- So he was born on American soil even though it is not now American soil. --

Just to expand on applying the conclusion that McCain would have been a natural born citizen of the US, even if his parents were Panamanian citizens (who went on to raise the child in Panama, and which child relocated to the US say in 1990), as a rule that birth on "US soil" constitutes sufficient criteria for being a "natural born citizen."

The general rule of jus soli is not universally applied to persons born in United States possessions or former possessions including: Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa and Swains Island, Canal Zone, Philippine Islands, the former Trust Territories (including Micronesia, The Marshall Islands, Palau, and the Northern Marianas).

Currently, births to Samoan parents, on American Samoa, become American nationals but not American citizens. Born citizenship isn't a matter determined purely by location, or purely by parentage. As for the sort of national allegiance that one might expect from a child, it's a no-brainer to conclude that the parentage will almost always have much more influence.

[freebird5850]

But it is our belief that he is not “legally” sitting hence he is an usurper.

[Non-Sequitur]

They do, and it’s because he order them onto the battlefield, perhaps resulting in their death.

They don't, and it's because the legal definition of standing requires an injury in fact that is real and immediate, not potential or conjectural. Saying that they can sue because they might be killed in battle is like saying I can sue an airline because their plane might crash with me on it.

[melancholy]

If it can be proved that he did know, then I think they will take the approach that the law is ambiguous on what “natural born” means. Constitutional precepts always have to be defined and implemented by laws.

The boasting, embellishment and lying will come into play here. He's not a lay man, he's a Constitutional PROFESSOR for crying out loud!

0ghosta and his communist allies, including the MSM, the RAT party bigwigs, the people who "checked" his credentials, etc., must pay for the biggest fraud in history.

The US and the world need a legitimate POTUS.

[Non-Sequitur]

In McCain’s case, I’m not even sure if this applies. He was born in the Panama Canal zone which at the time of his birth was an American possession. So he was born on American soil even though it is not now American soil.

It's not the same thing. McCain is a natural-born citizen because his parents were citizens. The Canal Zone was not and has never been American soil, any more that a military base in Germany is American soil. The child of German nationals who happened to be born on a U.S. base in Germany would not be a U.S. citizen. Likewise, the child of Panamanian nationals who was born in the Canal Zone wouldn't be a U.S. citizen either.

[Salvation]

for later

[RinaseaofDs]

‘THE GOP would win in huge blowouts in 2010’

I doubt it. You assume people actually care about the Constitution. I don’t think they do.

” . . . by our Creator with inalienable rights . . . life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”

This is one of the first assertions in the Constitution. It’s a warning: “This form of government only works for a people that believe in a Creator, and believe that life, liberty, and property are inalienable rights.”

We aren’t divided in the US because we are liberal and conservative - the terms mean nothing any more (See John McCain or Lindsay Graham). We are divided because a) we don’t all believe in a Creator and b)Life is ESPECIALLY alienable. It goes without saying that even more believe that liberty and the pursuit of happiness are VERY alienable rights (pursuit of happiness was a compromise. ‘Property’ was the third inalienable right, but the issue of slavery made that impossible).

There are millions of church-going people that think women have the sole and arbitrary right to determine who lives and who dies, for example.

For many, party affiliation is roughly on par with their affiliation with their favorite local sports team. Nothing more.

We won’t win anything, or at least we shouldn’t. We have proven to ourselves that a parliamentary system is really the only way to go from here. Heck, we’re already here (see Blue Dog or RINO).

[Old Teufel Hunden]

"The meaning of the term "natural-born citizen" has been spelled out by our very first Supreme Court Justice, both before and after Ratification of the Constitution, and by the author of the 14th Amendment."

You have cited many sources. Let's deal with them one at a time:

John Jay: "Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen."

This was a letter John Jay wrote to Washington before the Constitution was ratified. Nowhere in it does he define what a natural born citizen is.

You cited two Supreme court cases (Chisolm V. Georgia and Marbury vs. Madison). Neither of these cases have to do with defining a natural born citizen or the definition of a natural born citizen.

You cited the 14th amendment.
14th amendment: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

Where in that amendment is the term used of Natural born citizen? It's not. It says plainly, citizens of the United States. Coincidentally, the same term that is used in the Naturalization Act of 1795 you cited as changing the term:

"foreign-born children of American parents shall be considered as citizens of the United States."

This is the same term that is used in the current immigration and naturalization law. They are citizens of the United States at birth. So if you are going to cite the 14th amendment as saying people who were born here are natural born citizens, then the same term that is applied there is also applied to children outside the U.S. to parents who are American citizens.

Please, when you start citing cases and facts, you need to research what you are actually citing.

"Why is this so difficult?"

I'm asking the same question myself. John McCain is qualified under the constitution to be President.

[EternalVigilance]

The writer left out the fact that Alan Keyes, who has several lawsuits in this matter pending, not only was on the ballot in 2008, he was Obama’s opponent for the US Senate in 2004.

If Obama is not a citizen, he could not lawfully serve in the US Senate.

Which means Alan Keyes was deprived of the Illinois US Senate seat for the last five years.

If that doesn’t provide sufficient “standing,” nothing could.

[Old Teufel Hunden]

"it's a no-brainer to conclude that the parentage will almost always have much more influence."

That's the point I'm trying to get across. It's just common sense for one thing even if we didn't have evidence of it being true. John McCain was qualified per the constitution to be President. I can see whereas there can be questions regarding Obama's eligibility being that one of his parents was a British national at the time of his birth.

[trisham]

Interesting. Quite.

[Old Teufel Hunden]

"It's not the same thing. McCain is a natural-born citizen because his parents were citizens."

You are probably right about the place. I do know however that American bases and such have somewhat of a special place as to the law but that may be due to SOFA agreements. My main basis of argument is that he was born to two American citizens so he is de-facto an American. I don't even know how anyone can question the fact that John McCain was not born an American. It's silliness.